What is the leading Web Services development environment?

Discussions

News: What is the leading Web Services development environment?

  1. The two big players in Web Services development are still going at it. Initially Microsoft claimed that VisualStudio.NET is better for developing Web Service enabled websites than WebSphere. IBM responded and debunked the claim. Now Microsoft debunks the debunk.

    IBM seems to be satisfied with their first claim of superiority and just released two new Web Service technologies off alphaWorks, Web Services Hosting Technology, which allows for the provisioning and metering of services, and Web Services Gateway, a middleware component providing framwork between Internet and intranet environments.

    Threaded Messages (16)

  2. HI,

    I can't comment on WebSphere, but I have just started to play with VS.NET and I am having a hell of a time to create a freaking WEB application. I keep getting errors and I thus far found no solutions or clear explanations...

    You would figure with billions of dollars they could make a freaking IDE that at least was easy to start an applications!?

    Those crazy bastards at MS must be too busy counting their cash to wanna make simple things simple?

    Stef
  3. teeehheheehee.


    Stefan,

       Maybe Mr. Greg Leake, techinal marketing manager for .net may be able to give you a hand. He's a very resouceful fellow when it comes to VD.

    "Don't believe the hype, it's a SEQUEL" - Public Enemy


    p.s.

    VD = Verbal Diarrhea







  4. teeehheheehee.


    Stefan,

       Maybe Mr. Greg Leake, techinal marketing manager for .net may be able to give you a hand. He's a very resouceful fellow when it comes to VD.

    "Don't believe the hype, it's a SEQUEL" - Public Enemy


    p.s.

    VD = Verbal Diarrhea







  5. Actually, the best Web service development environment are the ones that have the most milage, have proven themselves in actualy production environments, and provide the greatest cross-platform portability. Right now I think this is a virtual tie - the following being the leading contenders:

    1. IBM Mainframe COBOL "01 Levels," ZModem, and the 3270 PC Emulator for Clipper.

    2. Tab separated files, Borland SuperKey for MS-DOS, and Lotus 1-2-3.

    3. Unix System V TermCap definitions for the Wyse 60 operating in DEC VT-100 compatibilty mode.

  6. For the latest direct reply from IBM regarding this debate, go to
    www.sys-con.com/webservices/
    lead story on this page is an interview with an IBM exec on this topic.
  7. If you are looking for IDE's for Web Services you should check out SilverStream's eXtend Workbench. There is a recent review by Infoworld on the tool that you can read.

    http://www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/12/24/011224tcsilver.xml

    SilverStream also has additional products to get you into massive xml integration etc. You can check out SilverStream's developer products at http://software.silverstream.com
  8. n n,

    How old are you exactly? You sound like you are about ten years old, if that. At any rate, I am still interested in finding out your real name and what company you work for so that you might take more responsibility for your postings. You seem very intent on destroying the value of discussion groups with your childish postings. Other Java developers have asked you to refrain from such posts, and I echo their claims and kindly ask you to keep things on point and on a more professional basis.

    Greg Leake
    Group Product Manager
    Microsoft Corporation
  9. Lin,

    I read the WSJ-IN interview with IBM, and it is very misleading. First, I want to point out that the .NET Pet Shop comparison and benchmark is separate from the Web Services comparison. The article discusses both as if they are the same. So lets looks at the bulk of what the IBM exec says about each comparison.

    1. With regard to the .NET Pet Shop comparison, the IBM exec says that the Java Pet Store basically sucks as a sample application, and goes on to slam its architecture, coding practices etc. in the interview. I find that very interesting, since the Pet Store is held up by Sun Microsystems as a primary blueprint application for J2EE that illustrates "best practice architecture" and "best coding practices....for enterprise applications." Quite simply, Sun has even published a Sun Blueprint-series book all about the Pet Store as a design pattern for enterprise applications, and has been telling enterprise developers to follow it. Furthermore, IBM appeared on stage with Sun and other J2EE vendors to endorse the Pet Store application at Java One, and even demonstrated it running in Websphere 4.0 in front of thousands of developers as a best practice enterprise application. And better yet, they ship it in the IBM Websphere 4.0 product as a sample application for developers to follow. So it is very disinegenous for IBM to come out now and say it is a bad application and should not be used to compare with .NET. They are all of a sudden singing a very different tune based on the the release of the .NET Pet Shop.

    2. With regard to our .NET vs. IBM Web Services comparison, the bulk of the interview seems to focus on the license cost comparison. Here again, the IBM exec is misleading customers, since he claims that our cost comparison does not take into account client access fees associated with the deployment. I would like to point out that we fully take into account client access licenses in the cost comparison, and that the IBM exec is simply misinformed on this topic. The IBM exec claims a 4-server Websphere deployment would cost a fixed amount no matter how many clients access the Websphere server. He states that the MS cost, however, may be lower out of the gate, but would be higher if there are many clients accessing the site becuase the client access licenses required for Windows 2000 Server drive up the cost as more users connect. This is wrong. In fact, we have included an Internet Connector License in our cost calculation, which includes *unlimited* authenticated client access to the .NET Web Service in question. So we fully stand behind our cost comparison, no matter how many users are connected and using the Web Service. For a 4-server deployment with 8 CPUs per server, IBM Websphere 4.0 would cost $12,000 per CPU or a total of $384,000. Microsoft .NET would cost $3,999 (W2K Advanced Server) + $1,999 (Internet Connector License) = $5,998 per server for a total of $23,992, no matter how many clients use the W2K site. The IBM executive should make a point of understanding the MS licensing costs before misrepresenting it, and IBM should correct their public document becuase it is wrong. IBM Websphere 4.0 costs 15 times more than Microsoft .NET in the example analayzed.
    I will be contacting the interviewer for the article so that a correction can be printed.

    Greg Leake
    Group Product Manager
    Microsoft Corporation




  10. Internet Connector License ?


    Sounds like AT&T aspirations. Exponential profit for Microsoft and exponential loses for businesses as they grow. Not to mention the escape clause to jack the fee at anytime. Whoever agrees to this should have his buttocks handed to him.




  11. n n,

    Actually, an Internet Connector License is a very simple construct that allows unlimited Windows 2000 authenticated access over the Internet. There is nothing exponential about it.

    Anyway, n n, you seem to have spent a lot of time researching my background, and not a lot of time making intelligent points. Dude, chill out ok? I have a point of view, you have a point of view. That is what makes a discussion group interesting. Personal attacks have no place here, and you are beginning to sound creepy.

    -Greg


  12. "Anyway, n n, you seem to have spent a lot of time researching my background, and not a lot of time making intelligent points" - Greg

    Don't let your ego get in the way of drawing rational conclusions. For your information, this is firsthand information. Not research.

    "Actually, an Internet Connector License is a very simple construct that allows unlimited Windows 2000 authenticated access over the Internet. There is nothing exponential about it" - Greg

    Then why have "Internet Connector License" within contracts if it is meaningless ? I disagree, it is extremely exponential: connection -> connections -> user -> users -> company.

    "you are beginning to sound creepy" - Greg
     
    Don't let your imaginations steer you off course. I suggest you watch more of Steve Ballmer jiggling to Gloria Estefan than x-files.
  13. Umm, maybe "Internet Connector License" is in contracts because it's a contractual licensing term? This isn't exactly a concept new to Microsoft...

    Anyway, that isn't really the point. If you read the article (at www.sys-con.com/webservices/) it sounds like the guy, honestly, doesn't really know what he's talking about. He seems to be really confused between the performance comparisons (which are a totally separate issue that has been discussed at length elsewhere in the forums here) and the web services comparison. I guess I would be too if I thought Microsoft ported the J2EE API conformance suite (and a poorly written application to boot, according to him!) from Java to .NET, which is apparently what he believes happened. And, he's totally convinced that Microsoft doesn't know what it's own software costs.

    All in all, not a good interview. I hope IBM gets somebody else in to address these points. It would probably help clarify things.

    Mark
  14. n n,

    Whatever.

    -Greg

  15. Microsoft in it's desperation to enter the service business model is planting "Internet Connector License" among other things within their contract and claiming it is unlimited. Perhaps so, for now.

    Once it has a comfortable market share, don't be surprised to see a monthly bill among other things in it's heading:

    INTERNET CONNECTOR LICENSE



  16. "Umm, maybe "Internet Connector License" is in contracts because it's a contractual licensing term? This isn't exactly a concept new to Microsoft... " -Mark

    huh ? That's some explanation. My parrot also repeats phrases he doesn't understand.





  17. Greg,

    I am not pimping defective goods (per advise from .net beta testers) on theserverside.com; Therefore, no need to scrutinize my background. On the other hand, there is such a need for you.

    Microsoft’s new tools operability are sexy GUI facades with no substance, which take years to flesh out. Build the guiy and worry about the guts later has been a very profitable business model for Microsoft. It’s about conning("The Experience") the consumer, while acting like Mary Poppins.

    Your tenure at Anderson Consulting speaks volumes about how you have been reared within the tech community. Anderson Consulting is notorious for packaging college grads as experts ($100/hr) with Armani costumes and buzzwords to make up for their ineptitude. Microsoft partnered consulting firms gain easy access to Microsoft licensed Trancenders(test simulators) that contain the exact questions and multiple choice answers for their examinations and the community is brazen enough to have upcoming examinations contents published on the internet.

    The reality is the substance of your presentation is the direct opposite of what you have to offer.
     
    P.S.
    What ever happened to the “Technical Marketing Manager” in your title?